










# 







% 


/ 
























* 








c 
































r 



s 














- • 


< , 

















\ 














' 






. 
































































































* 












&econD 



OF THE 



V 




ON 


THE NONIMPORTATION RESOLUTION OF 
MR. GREGG. 

J DID expect, Mr. Chairman, on coming to the House 


this morning, that the friends of the resolution under dis¬ 


cussion, would have brought forward some arguments to 
shew (what they had studiously avoided) that the ability to 
coerce Great-Britain is within the compass of this nation’s 
power; that this power ought now to be exerted, and that the 
proposed measure is equal to the desired effect. It behoves 
them to demonstrate all this, before they ask for our support. 
I did not come down to the House with the expectation 
of listening to a gross misrepresentation of my expressions 
yesterday, loose and desultory as I allow them to have been ; 
much less was I prepared to hear such misrepresentations 
from the lips of gentlemen, whom I have treated with inva¬ 
riable and guarded respect—between whom and myself, 
there has long existed a political friendship—real on my 
part, apparent on theirs. I did not, indeed, expect to 
hear particular expressions, used by me in the ardor of de¬ 
bate, broken and culled from their collective members, and 
mutilated and tortured into meanings, which cold-blooded 
malice alone could have devised. Sir, m this way of pro- 


A 




/ 




a 


t-S'Si * 

• E 

r^\o,. 

RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 

ceeding, without intending any profane comparison, the 
bible itself may be made to preach atheism, to declare that 
there is no God. u The fool saith in his heart , there is no 
u God .” Taken together, it is inspired wisdom: dismember 
it, it is impiety. 

It has not been denied by any member on this floor, that 
the carrying trade ; that the commerce and navigation of these 
states ought to be protected. The onlyquestion is, quo modo ? 
Have you the ability to protect them by war ? And are they 
of sufficient value to justify the expense of such protection ? 
We say no—they cannot pay for so dear a defence, rich as 
they maybe: but above all, they cannot repay us for the loss of 
our constitution. It is above all price. We go farther: we af¬ 
firm that trade is now protected by the most efficient means 
within our power—-by discriminating duties, laid by the votes 
of southern men; and yet, sir, we are threatened with schism, 
with a dissolution of the union, if we do not adopt particu¬ 
lar systems, devised by chance, begotten of ignorance or im¬ 
becility. Are these the mild and conciliatorij plans and ideas 
of which gentlemen boast? Is this mildness ? Is this conci¬ 
liation ? Is this peace ? The gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
(Mr. Smilie) with a face of wondrous importance, tells you, 
that by the constitution, we have power to raise and main¬ 
tain armies, to build and equip navies: from which he draws 
the inference that (under whatever circumstances, I sup¬ 
pose) we must actually do what the constitution allows. 
And yet that gentleman, in former times, voted with us a- 
gainst armies and navies! Let him justify himself if he can, 
upon his new principles? I repeat it—if the unjust aggres¬ 
sions of a foreign nation ; if indignity and insult abroad, are 
always to produce war, the gentleman was criminal in refus¬ 
ing to support the administration in 1798 . Yes, you were 
then compelled to drain the cup of humiliation to its very 
dregs. Did he put that cup by ? Did he vote for fleets and 
armies, or a suspension of commercial intercourse with 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


France ? What was the French edition of the laws of nations 
then ? That a bale of British manufacture (without any ques¬ 
tion of enemy’s property) should subject to seizure and con¬ 
demnation. And what was the British doctrine in 1793? 
That France was, with one sweep of the pen, in a state of 
siege and blockade, and that American flour, &c. should not 
be carried there at all. And yet against these principles and 
practices, preposterous and injurious as they were, we did 
not go to war; at least, that gentleman was opposed to such 
war, if war it may be called, as was waged. 

But whilst I acknowledge the carrying trade to be valua¬ 
ble to a certain extent, I must, unless I abandon every pre¬ 
tension to the character of a politician, act on existing cir¬ 
cumstances—on things as they are, not as I believe they 
ought to be. In casting about, the first thing, or one of the 
first, to be considered, is revenue. Almost our whole reve¬ 
nue is derived from commerce ; that is, from the domestic 
consumption of imports from abroad. How much comes 
from the carrying trade? Your statements, I am told, say 
800,000 dollars. But if our whole consumption were im¬ 
ported in foreign bottoms, the impost would exceed its pre¬ 
sent amount, by eleven or twelve hundred thousand dollars. 

I warn gentlemen against a misrepresentation of the fact. 
Am I therefore desirous to gain this increase at the expense 
of our navigation ? Far from it. It would be to kill the goose 
that lays the golden egg. But what is this branch of the car¬ 
rying trade, for which gentlemen would sacrifice not only 
our whole navigation and commerce, but the agriculture 
and constitution of the country ? Look at this trade which 
is to be guarded at every risk, and the men who follow it. 
Do they carry your products abroad, and bring back goods 
for home consumption ? No ; they plunge their hands into 
your pockets for drawback—-during this very session, they 
threatened to plunder the treasury of millions, by a bill, hap¬ 
pily arrested on its passage. If our fair trade is not pro- 


4 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


tected, how comes it that it has grown with a rapidity be¬ 
fore unheard of in any age, unknown in any nation ? That 
growth has been nourished by protecting duties, and fostered 
by our neutral position. We are the real friends of your navi¬ 
gation. It has grown beneath the shade of discriminating 
duties, flourished in the sunshine of the neutral character— 
with the first blight of maritime war it dies. 

I am accused too, with stigmatizing the merchants of the 
United States. I deny the charge. Every profession and 
calling of human life is disgraced by unworthy members.— 
The law has its pettifoggers, the church its hypocrites ; medi¬ 
cine and politics, too sir, have their empirics—and if there be 
two professions in the world, which can be selected for a 
tendency to develope the pre-existing germ of imperfection 
planted in our nature, they are the profession of the lawyer, 
and the occupation of the trader. And wherefore ? Be¬ 
cause they open the wide field of temptation. The wisest 
prayer that ever was or can be devised for human infirmity, 
is that which teaches us to deprecate such trials—“ We be¬ 
seech thee, lead us not into temptation !” What is the 
fact ? Whilst we boast of our honour on this floor, our 
name has become a by-word among the nations. Europe, 
and Paris especially, swarms with pseudo-Americans, with 
Anglo and Gallo-Americans, and American French and 
English, who have amassed imjnense fortunes by trading in 
the neutral character, by setting it up to auction, and selling 
it to the best bidder. Men of this description—striplings, 
without connexions or character, have been known to buy 
rich vessels and their cargoes, in Amsterdam and Antwerp, 
and trade with them, under the American name, to the In¬ 
dies. Neutral character has constituted one of the best 
remittances for colonial produce, or the goods which pur¬ 
chase it; and the trade in this commodity of neutrality has 
proved a most lucrative branch of traffic. This it is that 
has sunk and degraded the American name abroad, and sub- 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


S 


jected the fair trader to vexatious seizure and detention.-^- 
But I am asked, if we shall submit to a tame and dastardly- 
abandonment of our rights ?—and by those, too, who have 
made a cowardly surrender of our best interests and our 
honor, when we were well able to have maintained them. I 
beg leave to reply to this question by asking another. Are 
you prepared to assert them ? to go all lengths to enforce 
them ? In what consists true dignity ? In vapouring in 
the newspapers ? In printed handbills and resolutions ? Or 
in taking ground which you can and will maintain—which 
no change of fortune shall compel you to desert ? Aut nun - 
qnam tentes , aut perjice . Does the gentleman want a trans¬ 
lation ? Here is one truly American: “ Stick , or go 
through .” This is true dignity :—can he give a better de¬ 
finition ? And what constitutes false dignity ? Playing 
the part of a Bobadii—bullying England, and truckling to 
Spain—I beg pardon, there is no Spain :—-bullying England 
and truckling to France. This you have done. You know 
it. When gentlemen tell us of their willingness to publish 
our proceedings, why do they not clear the galleries and take 
off the injunction of secrecy ? Let their private vote cor¬ 
respond with their public profession. And let me tell the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Smilie) that I would 
rather have his vote than his speech at any time. Who 
would suppose, if he had not averred it, that he held silence 
and good sense in such high respect, that he preferred the 
calm decisions of quiet wisdom, to the effusions of empty 
garrulity. 

The gentleman from New-York has told us, that after the 
Call of the Executive for firm measures, he did not expect 
this opposition. And does he call this a firm measure ?— 
What would have been a firm measure ? An embargo.— 
That would have gone to the root of the evil. But that, sir, 
would not have suited your Proteus politicians. There 
could have been no evasion of that. But your slippery mer- 


6 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


cantile eels can slide over or under this provision, and leave 
the whole burthen of suffering to fall on the planter, the 
farmer, and the real American. The whole revenue, we are 
told, is derived from commerce. Who pays it ultimately 
but the consumer, and with as large a profit on the mer¬ 
chant’s advance of the duties (often a mere advance of credit) 
as he receives from any other part of his capital. These 
new ideas of firmness are either above or below my compre¬ 
hension. And because we are anxious to see the public 
debt paid off, and the true interests of the nation maintained— 
because we will not abandon the plough, and struggle to re¬ 
strain Executive influence, we are charged with hostility to 
all commerce, with insensibility to the honor of our country. 
When our doors were shut, (this is no breach of confidence) 
one of my colleagues called for the reading of a Message 
from the President, soon after he came into office. It was 
tip most severe and cutting satire that ever man listened to. 
I say it was a bitter satire on your proceedings, then and 
now. It recommended the application of our resources to 
a speedy discharge of the public debt; a rigid adherence to 
specific appropriations ; tying down executive officers to the 
letter of the law ; restricting them to the literal objects and 
amount of our appropriations. What is the commentary ? 
In time of peace, (for I trust no one will call this wind-mill 
attack on Tripoli, war ) the expenditures of the navy depart¬ 
ment, so far from each item of expense being limited by the 
specific appropriation for that object, have exceeded the 
gross sum appropriated for that branch of the public ser¬ 
vice sixty per cent! And if this is a specimen of the 
yearly cost of hulks rotting in the mud, what estimate can 
you make of the disbursements in time of actual war, 
against a powerful maritime state, when vour seventy-fours 
are ready for sea ? This is naked truth. It rests on figures.— 
If it be not true, how comes it that we have passed two ap¬ 
propriation laws, to the amount of six hundred thousand 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


7 


dollars, during the present session, to cover the navy defi¬ 
ciencies of the last year—almost the only bills that we have 
passed. Yes, sir, I am for paying one debt off, the cost of a 
former war, before I enter into another, and score up a second. 

I confess myself to be among the number of those politicians 
(gentlemen may style them visionary if they please) who 
hailed the President of the United States as the political 
Messiah, sent to convince an unbelieving world, that a debt 
once funded, might be paid off, without the intervention of a 
spunge. If in this I was visionary, at least I was not alone. 
The promise has been large, the nation calls for its perform¬ 
ance. Look at the measures of tire government, and when 
you reckon the Louisiana debt, that created under the Bri¬ 
tish treaty, and some others, it will appear that you have 
nearly scored up as much new debt as you have paid off of 
the old. I speak of principal; paying the interest of a 
debt is not diminishing it—and my friend from Pennsylva¬ 
nia, (Mr. J. Clay) must have taken the interest into his 
large account of yesterday. The amount of principal re¬ 
deemed is less than 18,000,000. If gentlemen deny this, 
let them refer to the treasury statements, laid before us at the 
opening of the session, or call upon the head of that depart¬ 
ment to state the amount of debt paid and created, within the 
last five years. But you will be told, for your money you 
have value received, at least. This I freely acknowledge. 
I would have given the sum for the Delta of the Mississippi, 
if it could not have been honorably acquired for less. GI 
whom did we purchase ? From Spain, who had wrongfully 
with-held our right of deposit ? So far from it, that we tell 
her she has yet to make satisfaction for that injury and in¬ 
sult—*we bring it into account against her. No, sir, we pur¬ 
chased from France, the rightful proprietor, against whom 
we then had no subject of complaint. 

I am accused by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. 
Smilie) this I suppose is a specimen of his candor—(I am 


8 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


reluctant to say any thing whilst he is absent—I am sorry 
he has fled his seat)—of designedly passing over one of the 
mos important considerations presented by the present 
subject —the impressment of our seamen. And yet what 
did that gentleman tell you ? That he himself, long as he 
had trespassed on your time, had been compelled to omit 
many important things, that he intended to say. This re¬ 
alizes the proverb, u One man may steal a horse, whilst ano¬ 
ther must not look over the hedge.” I will tell the gentle¬ 
man, if I did omit this topic, I had scarcely thrown myself 
into the carriage that conveyed me home, before I recollect¬ 
ed and regretted it. The gentleman may say what he plea¬ 
ses, but he never had, no man shall have cause to upbraid 
me with flinching from any question that may be brought 
on this floor. Now, sir, let gentlemen lay their hands upon 
their hearts and answer sincerely if they do believe this re¬ 
solution has the power to take one American seaman out of 
a British ship of war ? Are gentlemen hostile to impress¬ 
ment, and yet jriendly to a naval war ; to systems which 
must eventuate in the introduction of this system at home, 
in the subversion of our liberties ? Let them examine the 
profound argument of judge Foster on this subject. The} 
will find that Great-Britain is compelled to resort to it, to 
maintain her naval power and her existence. And it is be¬ 
cause I am opposed to resorting to the same expedient, (for 
will any man pretend that a great navy can be manned with¬ 
out recurring to it ?) because I think it abhorrent to the 
genius of a free people, that I am against rushing into that 
naval war, into which gentlemen wish to precipitate us. 
No, sir, you cannot command seamen for your navy, in 
time of war, without impressment. The wealth of Croe¬ 
sus could not sustain the expense, and even if that objec¬ 
tion could be removed, the operation by enlistment is too 
tardy to meet a sudden emergency. If you have difficulty 
in procuring seamen to serve in the Mediterranean, what 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


9 


will be tne case in a war against England. With all their 
bravery, many a man who would willingly meet the corsairs, 
or even the Dons or Monsieurs, would feel reluctant to be 
led to battle against a British fleet—and why, sir ? Because, 
waving other considerations, a great proportion of our sea¬ 
men are foreigners—natives of Great-Britain, who still 
feel prejudices for their parent country. Yes, sir, the cha¬ 
racter of the American seamen, like that of the neutral tra¬ 
der, too often eludes our grasp. The moment you make 
war, much more if you resort to impressment, the Ameri¬ 
can sailor vanishes ; he becomes a subject of Denmark : with 
the first frost, he disappears in a night. 

But if I did not misunderstand the gentleman from Penn¬ 
sylvania, he said that I had treated the House in a manner 
of which, sir, I trust that I am incapable of acting towards 
any assembly, much less one of your dignity. Am I, in¬ 
deed, so ignorant of the feelings of man ? Of the character 
and composition of this House? No, sir, I have spoken of 
certain projects and their projectors in language such 
only as I think they deserve, and in which, claiming 
the same liberty which that gentleman urges and exacts, I 
will ever speak of such absurd and fantastical systems. 
The authors are no doubt interested in diffusing the ridicu¬ 
lous burthen of their disgrace as widely as possible. I can¬ 
not blame them for it, sir—’tis natural to wish for partners 
in our shame. But the great political sin, for which I have 
been denounced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is the 
opinion which I have expressed of a certain book, which 
seems to be his political Bible. And, sir, he would have 
me considered as an inconsiderate person, who would not 
scruple to call Locke a dunce, Newton a driveller, and 
Franklin a journeyman printer ; and in an oracular saw, he 
has pronounced that this book will live when he and I too, 
sir, are laid in our graves. But when he considers his own 
age, and the frailty of my constitution, he will confess that 


10 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


he has allowed but a short span for the existence of his fa¬ 
vorite work. But even though it should live when we arc 
wasting in the silent tomb, there is nothing in my compo¬ 
sition that aspires to be considered as its author. Who is 
the author ? Does the gentleman know ? Must we have se¬ 
mi-official authority, even for a title page ? No, sir; what¬ 
ever others may think I have no ambition to have written 
such a book as this. I abjure the very idea. Unless my 
understanding has abandoned me, it involves an abandon¬ 
ment of the very doctrine for which the writer contends. 
Sir, the very cursory view which I took of this subject, yes¬ 
terday, will compel me into some repetitions, but I must beg 
to be indulged in some additional remarks. What is the 
doctrine ? 

u In times of peace among all nations, their commercial 
intercourse is under no other restrictions than what may be 
imposed by their respective laws, or their mutual compacts. 
No one, or more nations, can justly controul the commerce 
between any two or more of the others. 

u When war happens between any two or more nations, 
a question arises, in what respect it can affect the commerce 
of nations not engaged in war ? 

“ Between the nations not engaged in the war, it is evi¬ 
dent, that the commerce cannot be affected at all by a war 
between others. 

w As a nation not engaged in the war remains in the 
same relations of amity and of commercial pursuits, with 
each of the belligerent nations, as existed prior to he war, 
it would seem that the war could not affect the intercourse 
between the neutral and either of the belligerent nations ; 
and that the neutral nation might treat and trade with ei¬ 
ther, or both the belligerent nations, with the same free¬ 
dom as if no war had arisen between them. This, as the 
general rule, is sufficiently established.” 

Here is a faint endeavour to establish the principle, that 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


11 


iree ships make free goods. But the writer, as if despair¬ 
ing of his ability to affect it, goes on to say—“ But inas¬ 
much as the trade of a neutral nation with a belligerent na¬ 
tion, might, in certain special cases, affect the safety of its 
antagonist, usage, founded on the principle of necessity, 
has admitted a few exceptions to the general rule”— 
“usage” founded on what? Reason? Right? No, sir, 
on that law which admits nothing to control it— u Neces¬ 
sity” that cannot stoop to argument. If once you admit 
that necessity ought, can, or does, establish exceptions to 
this broad rule, do you not admit all that the British doc¬ 
trine requires ? But, sir, it will be said, that the sole 
legitimate proof of this necessity is usage . But usage must 
have had abeginning, and the small protection which this ar¬ 
gument affords, isthrown away by the subsequent admission, 
that a change in circumstances f u in the course of com¬ 
merce ,” for instance) will justify a departure from estab¬ 
lished maxims ; will warrant the commencement of a new 
usage. As if all the articles contraband of war, were mi¬ 
nutely specified, and by a change in the maxims and imple¬ 
ments of war, new and more terrible instruments of an¬ 
noyance should be fabricated, would they not fall under 
the head of contraband ? And is it not demonstrable, that 
a direct tradfc to France, in gun-powder, or any other ar¬ 
ticle contraband of war, would be less beneficial to her, 
and less injurious to her enemy, than the colonial trade 
now in dispute ; and is not (according to this writer’s ac¬ 
knowledgment) the lesser principle involved in the greater ? 
Am I, therefore, the apologist of England ? I scorn to 
boast of my patriotism :—it is indigenous. And when I 
am reduced so low as to plead to the charge of want of 
love to my country—of natural affection to my birth-place, 
my pride will tell me to bid you farewell; to go home and 
hide mv shame. Am I the apologist of Britain, because 


12 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


your cause has been weakly defended, or treacherously be¬ 
trayed. No, sir ; this u Examiner” is her apologist. I 
have not minutely dissected the work. T here was no oc¬ 
casion for it. It is something like the edifice we inhabit. 
’Tis hardly worth while to be examining frizes and corni¬ 
ces, and architraves, and stucco-work, when you kno’V 
the foundation to be rotten, whilst the building is tur. 
bling about your ears, and we are obliged to seek refug*; 
in another. It is not, indeed, sir, worth while to consu 
the orders of architecture, in a miserable card-house of a * 
argument, w’hich the first puff of wind must demolish. 

Sir, the admission, that a change of circumstances v 
justify a departure from the established maxims among; 
nations, was an unnecessary and fatal concession, nc 
called for by the nature of the case. What is u thecours 
of commerce now” ? Totally changed in a few short years 
The marine of France, Spain, and Holland, whether f 
purposes of trade or war, is no more. They have m 
longer navigation or navy. Again, amongst a load of qu^ 
tations from Grotius, and Puffendorf, and the Lord know 
who, we are told it is the duty of the neutral to obser 
the strictest impartiality ; u to behave himself alike to bot 
the belligerent parties.” But is it to behave alike to botl 
parties, to carry for him who cannot carry for himself— 4 
throw the iEgis of neutrality over a commerce, which 1 . 
can no longer protect, to save him all the danger, expense 
and risk of convoy, and war insurance. This is a hollow, 
Delphic reciprocity :—reciprocity to the ear, but not to 
the sense. If you carry contraband, or attempt to enter a 
blockaded port, you are liable to capture. Why ? Be¬ 
cause justified by necessity. As to the motives of the 
neutral merchant, they are out of the question. His ob¬ 
ject, no doubt, like that of every other trader under the 
sun, is gain. He, sir, is too often the mere ephemeron, 
the butterfly of the day, who does not care one farthing, 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


13 


whether you are at war with this or that nation, with Eng¬ 
land, or with France, provided he can get good returns. 
His business is to post his books, and balance the ledger, 
and whether he deals with the subjects of a white Empe¬ 
ror, or a black one, of Bonaparte, or Dessalines, ’tis all 
one to him. No doubt, sir, it is the right of the neutral, 
to pursue, and he will, he ought, to pursue his own inte¬ 
rest. But it is the right of a belligerent, as conceded by 
this writer, to inquire how far t uch pursuit comes into 
collision with his interests and his safety. The motive 
of the neutral may not be hostility, to either party enga¬ 
ged in war, but his own benefit. This, however, will not 
influence the belligerent nation, who takes up the ques¬ 
tion solely with a view to its effect on itself. What will 
Great-Bntain say ?—that the exigency exists—it has oc¬ 
curred, flagrante bello , that the necessity admits of no de¬ 
lay—that you yourselves have abandoned the question in 
dispute, and even if you have not, that she cannot consent 
to sit down quietly, and be extirpated from the face of 
nations, out of complaisance to Grotius or Bynker- 
shoek, or in deference to the unknown author of this 
pamphlet, although he should exceed Bacon in genius, or 
Newton in intensity of thought. I must defend myself; 
the knife is at my throat—I have no more time for argu¬ 
ment, but if you insist upon it, I will fight you. Sir, I 
have tried, but I could not get through this work. I found 
it so wire-drawn, the thread so fine, that I could neither 
see nor feel it ; such a tangled cobweb of contradictions, 
that I was obliged to give it up. The first thing that 
struck me on opening it, was the peculiar infelicity with 
which it had surrendered the matter in dispute. And if 
this appeared at once to my unlearned eyes, do gentlemen 
suppose it will not be detected on the other side of the 
Atlantic ? That it will receive no abler examination 
there, than the feeble and cursory one that I have given 


14 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


it. And after all, what does it contain ? A remedy for the 
evil ? No ; a formal declaration that we are diseased. Sir, 
we wanted no ghost to tell us that. It required no extra¬ 
ordinary exertion of learning or genius, to shew, that we 
had, indeed, delicate subjects of difference with Great- 
Britain ; the question is, how shall they be adjusted. We 
want the opinion of the doctor on the mode of treatment, 
and don’t choose to be referred to the apothecary, because 
the superior does not choose to risk his reputation in a du¬ 
bious case. 

A gentleman from Pennsylvania has told us, that Great- 
Britain is our commercial rival. But does not the gentleman 
know, that the very term implies a correlative. That if 
she is your commercial rival, you are her commercial ri¬ 
val also. This is the very view that I have been endea¬ 
vouring to take of the subject, to impress on the commit¬ 
tee ; to warn the nation against being drawn into a war cf 
commercial rivalship. Sir, when men fall out about "wo¬ 
men, they are not apt to call in some learned doctor to decide 
the dispute—they yield to feeling or instinct—-just so with 
nations, commercial nations especially, differing on interest, 
which is their instinct. And would gentlemen wish to ex¬ 
cite this young nation, as yet in the gristle, to a foreign 
contest with Great-Britain, in the full strength of manhood ? 
I speak of foreign war.—The will and ability to defend 
ourselves is one thing—to act three thousand miles off', an¬ 
other. They may rely as much as they please upon the 
French emperor’s making a separate peace with the conti¬ 
nent, to the exclusion of Great-Britain. If she puts out her 
-strength, you will feel it. This proposition will subject her 
to all the evils of an American war, without any of the 
concomitant advantages. A nd can you expect a tame ac¬ 
quiescence on her part ? If her minister be not a bastard ; 
if he has one drop of the blood of Chatham in his veins, he 
will die for the liberties of his country, sooner than surrender 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


IS 


her independence. He will do it. No, sir, whatever I may 
think of the vices and corruptions of the government of that 
country, I must applaud her intelligence and spirit, must 
admire her ability, wisdom and strength. 

But another gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Smilie} 
asks if it is not astonishing that a man, whom he allows to 
possess common sense, whom he represents as trembling at 
the power of Great-Britain, should be making calculations 
of the future power of France, instead of guarding against 
the immediate danger? Sir, France may become a naval 
power—Great-Britain never can become a military one. 
I ask any practical man, if the day can ever arrive when 
Great-Britain will be able to threaten the safety of the conti¬ 
nent of Europe or America, or dictate to either of them. 
Is it my fault that the gentleman cannot, or will not see 
this, because, as he tells you, fools and madmen can never 
be brought to believe that the spirit of God hath passed 
them by, and enlightened the understandings of other men. 
But to shew that this is not just cause of war, we are re¬ 
ferred to the time of the stamp-act, and the non-importa¬ 
tion agreement of 1774, which did not, it seems, produce 
immediate war. Is there any analogy between the two 
cases? We then formed one nation. A man may make 
a great sacrifice to preserve his friend, but when he has 
lost him, he will, as has been seen to-day, be denounced 
as the bitterest enemy. The other instances are equally 
defective and inapplicable. You may as well go back to 
the flood. The same gentleman inquires, are you indeed 
so peaceable towards England, who has trampled upon you, 
and hostile to France, who has offered you no injury ? 
Wherefore ? On this occasion, I must repeat the old pro¬ 
verb, ’tis the still hog that drinks the swill. She finds it 
convenient to make a miserable stalking-horse, a scare¬ 
crow of Spain. The gentleman inquires how long Great- 
Britain has acted upon these philanthropic principles ; this 


*16 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


generous, benevolent policy, ascribed to her. But is any 
man so weak, or so wicked, as to pretend that there is any 
principle of action between nations except interest f Give 
Great-Britain the power, and she will to-morrow play the 
same part. Sir, we are not theophilanthropists, but politi¬ 
cians; not d earners and soothsayers, but men of flesh and 
blood. ’Tis idle to talk of a sense of justice in any nation. Each 
pursues its sense of interest; and if you calculate on their act¬ 
ing upon any other principle, you maybe very amiable, but you 
will prove a cully. We are asked what Great-Britain can do to 
annoy us. We answer, at this moment, more than any other 
nation of the world, because she commands the ocean, the 
sole medium of communication between us. But draw her 
olf from that element, and France is not less omnipotent up¬ 
on it. She is a great military power, and it is because Bri¬ 
tain is not, cannot be such a power, that it is impolitic to 
break her down. Go to war when you will, you must be¬ 
come the ally of France; } r ou would only put off, by enhanc¬ 
ing it, the danger you would guard against. You will but 
clap a tortoise under your elephant. 

The same gentleman tells you, that the gigantic power of 
France hangs on the brittle life of an individual. But do 
you believe it : Are you such drivellers in politics as to 
believe that the fate of such a military despotism hangs on 
the life of one man. If Mahomet II. had been killed under 
the walls of Constantinople, would the destiny of the Greek 
empire have been changed ? Would not the power have 
passed into the hands of some Solyman or Selim, the terror 
of the civilized world ? Shall we abandon practice for the¬ 
ory ? 

In some respects we are situated as the successors of 
Alexander were placed in relation to Rome and Carthage. 
Here is an iron republic, or call it what you will, that threat¬ 
ens the liberties of mankind—the government, above all 
others in Europe, to which our own is most hateful and ob- 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


17 


noxious. This is beyond dispute. Does it become us ot 
facilitate its designs ? I do not inquire as to motives, nor 
will that government care about them. If you give it facili¬ 
ties to effect its purposes, those purposes are obtained, so far 
as depends on you. Is this wise ? Is it proper ? Is it right ? 
Am I asked for my plan ? If I meant to act efficiently, I 
would have begun with an embargo ; I would now do what 
was done before ; I would treat with Great-Britain, and for 
the very reason that I would not have treated with her, in the 
year 1T94 ; for the same reason that the gentleman, whose 
resolution is now under discussion, then treated with her, 
I would not: now he is for war, I am for negociation and 
peace. And why ? Because the state of nations has since 
undergone a momentous change : disastrous changes indeed, 
have been effected in the face of things. We often hear of 
the abuses and corruptions of the British government; 
whilst the continental despotisms pass unnoticed and unre¬ 
garded. Let us beware of introducing such abuses into 
our own. We have no farther concern with them. Do 
gentlemen think worse of the character and motives of Wil¬ 
liam Pitt than of Robespierre ; and yet, monster as he was, 
Robespierre, that cannibal of his own countrymen, was in 
his day, the sole bulwark of the human race. And what¬ 
ever be her motives, or professions, Great-Britain now stands 
exactly in the place of France twelve years ago. Take her 
navy out of the way to-morrow, and where are you ? The 
secretary of the navy has indeed reported that the Chesa¬ 
peake is fit for service, and that the Constitution is in a state 
of thorough repair; but would the real Chesapeake , the Bay , 
be fit for use in that case ; and what would be the operation 
on the actual constitution of the United States ? Sir, I am 
opposed to a French war as well as to a war with England. 
I would treat with England for another reason. I wish we 
had not a commercial treaty with any nation whatever. I 


18 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


am opposed to them on principle ; hut the principle is already 
settled. We have them. By your treaties with her ene¬ 
mies, your hands are tied up from taking against them any 
such measure as the one proposed : they are to be admitted 
on the terms of the most favored nation. This is, probably, 
one of the principal causes of disgust to England. Again : 
she made an offer to repeal her discriminating duties, if you 
would do so too ; to trade with us upon even terms. By 
mercantile clamour you were deterred from meeting her half 
way : moreover, you have refused to ratify treaties with 
her, after they had been signed by your own minister. No 
doubt you had the right to do so. But can vou be surprised, 
under such circumstances,that a haughty commercial rival has 
been irritated. After your oblations to Franee, who cannot re¬ 
ceive a single pound of sugar, or coffee, but under cover of 
your flag , who is dependent upon you for services which she 
cannot render herself; who is not your rival in commerce; 
what can you expect from a jealous competitor in trade, 
who stands not in need of your navigation—whose every 
advance towards a good understanding, has received a 
mortifying repulse ? Sir, you have, at this moment, a ne- 
gociation pending with Great-Britain. You have no cause 
to despair of its success : far otherwise. The plain ques¬ 
tion is, will you await its issue, or will you, pendente lite y 
precipitate yourself into a measure, which must put all ne¬ 
gotiation aside, which must eventuate in war. If you 
want war, there is no doubt that you may have it. Great- 
Britain will not submit to all the hardships and mischiefs 
of war, because you choose to call it peace. She will pre¬ 
fer open war to war in disguise : and I, sir, have no hesi¬ 
tation in saying, that, I am for no half measures. Begin 
that system when you will, war, or disgrace, must grow 
out of it. I am for neither. The gentleman, indeed, says 
that this, which has been denounced as a war measure, is 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


19 


a measure of peace. Let us have no more quasi wars, I 
beseech you, sir ; no half measures ; no intermediate stage, 
but open war, or peace. I abhor this political quackery. 
Give us war or negociation ; if you resort to the one, let 
us abandon the other. But we are asked if American vir¬ 
tue will so far degrade and debase itself, as to treat with 
the old and corrupt government of England. There is a 
plain answer to this. You have a treaty with her now— 
with every government, I believe, that would make one 
with you. But whilst we boast of our virtue, let us be¬ 
ware that our own sins are not cast into our teeth. Let 
us see, how far these punctilios are warranted by the con¬ 
duct of our own agents. Look to the management of the 
convention of Paris, of the 30th April, 1803. You have 
all seen the case of the New-Jersey, Nicklin and Griffith’s 
ship. It has created a general sensation. And yet, what 
is the fact ? Compared with others, they have almost no¬ 
thing to complain of. Bad as that case is, it is amongst 
the least exceptionable instances of misconduct in your 
ministry at Paris. It is true, Nicklin and Griffith’s claim 
was cut down, I believe one half, because the sum appro¬ 
priated would not otherwise, it was feared, be sufficient 
to answer all the drafts of chicanery upon it. These men, 
were, therefore, mulcted fifty per cent. They are rich 
merchants—able to make their case known—it has been 
heard, and has rung through the continent. There are 
hundreds of cases even worse than this. The claims in¬ 
tended to be provided for are set aside. Why ? Because 
government has been represented abroad by unfaithful, dis¬ 
honest agents. Have they been called to account for their 
conduct ? Three millions seven hundred and fifty thou¬ 
sand dollars, stipulated to be paid, to bona fide American 
citizens—where have they gone ? Into the pockets of re- 
negadoes and the bureaux of Paris ? Yes, the traders in 


20 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


neutral character, have divided the spoil with the harpies 
of the French bureaux. These are they, in whose favour 
the bills have been drawn on the Treasury of the United 
States, by their own minister. Take the case of the Pi- 
gou—There was no question indeed as to her being Ame¬ 
rican property ; but she was captured flagrante bello j 
(when we were taking the Insurgente and Berceau) she 
was, therefore, a good prize, and condemned according- 
ingly. Yet the decision of the inferior court was rever- 
sedbythe council of prizes, and this case brought within the 
convention ; to the exclusion, no doubt, of bona fide claims 
for neutral American property captured and condemned, 
and for which the convention was intended to provide. 
This is a specimen of the mode of doing business at Paris. 
If gentlemen doubt upon the subject, let them call on the 
secretary of state, for the correspondence of the com¬ 
missioners. Let them call for John Mercer, one of those 
commissioners, a man inferior to few in point of talents; 
in point of character, to none. Put him to the bar and ex¬ 
amine him. 

Painful as it is to me, I must defend my principles and 
those of my friends. Open your statute book: what does 
it say? That the shores and waters of the bay and river 
Mobile shall form a district. I brought in the bill myself. 
The executive had informed us, that we had purchased 
from France, as far as the Perdido to the east.—We legis¬ 
lated upon it. Whence have arisen your disputes with 
Spain—from Pensacola or St. Agustine? No; from the 
very country which the statute book savs is yours. In 
your own collection district, are Spanish duties exacted 
and paid. From this very quarter, incursions have been 
made into the old United States. Do gentlemen believe 
that this fact will be lost on Great-Britain? But we are 
asked, (by Mr. Smilie) what has she to do with differences 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


21 


between us and Spain ?—What right has she to interfere, 
to inquire, or even to know, or seem conscious of what has 
passed in that quarter ? Is this intended as a serious ques¬ 
tion ? Because you have clapped a padlock upon your own 
mouths, and wilfully shut your eyes, do you expect to 
hoodwink an eagle-eyed adversary ? ’Tis in vain to expect, 
that any nation in her intercourse with you, will be blind 
to your conduct towards others. Great-Britain must shut 
her eyes, and ears too, not to understand the state of things 
here—at least, negatively speaking. She must know that 
you have taken no imposing attitude towards Spain; done 
nothing to strengthen the southern frontiers; made no 
addition to your naval and military force; left even the 
militia in statu quo ante . Because the doors have been 
shut, can people be brought to believe that we have raised 
armies and equipped fleets in conclave? I never heard, 
sir, but of one army incog, and that was levied by the face¬ 
tious Mr. Bayes, for the service of the stage, not of the 
state—and from some dramatic specimens which I have 
lately seen, I should not be surprised to hear of a similar 
project being started on this floor. Great-Britain will see 
then, what has not been your proceeding towards Spain. 
She will say, shall I suffer myself to be brow-beaten by a 
nation, clamouring for the right of highway, that has not 
spirit enough to defend her own domicile ? If A acts like 
a paltroon towards B, who has committed a gross outrage 
upon him, and shall have a subsequent controversy with 
C, shall he pretend to bully him, and expect C, not to call 
to mind, his cowardly behaviour with B, and treat him 
accordingly? One foreign nation will be influenced, will 
be governed in her concerns with you, by your concessions 
to another ; and it is the idlest thing in the world, to ex¬ 
pect that your treatment by one government, will not have 
an effect on the deportment of others towards you. 


22 


RANDOLPH’S SECOND SPEECH. 


One word more, sir, before I conclude. Gentlemen 
miscalculate if they suppose that mere authority , much 
less at second hand, will do for us. They must shew us 
something better before we swallow their resolution. ’Tie 
an infirmity, sir, of my nature, that I cannot yield to the 
imposing sound of great names. They never did, and they 
never shall put me to silence, or drive me from my pur¬ 
pose. I am apprised of the secret denunciations which 
are on foot, and I despise them. '1 hey shall never affect 
me.—I came into public life with these principles, and I 
will leave it with them, leave it when I may. 


JUST PUBLISHED, 


BY ISAAC RILEY AND CO. 

NO. 1, CITY-HOTEL, BROADWAY. 

Fleetwood, or the New Man of Feeling, by William 

Godwin, 2 vols. 12mo. boards, two dollars. This is the 

celebrated Novel lately written by Godwin , which has so high¬ 
ly excited the attention of the Public. It contains , in many pas¬ 
sages ., a tacit retraction of his former errors of opinion , and 
partakes largely of the fire , originality and eccentricity , that 
mark his other productions* 

Cullen’s First Lines of the Practice of Physic. 2 vols. in 

one large 8vo. fine paper, $2 50. The long established 

merit of this work , renders any remark unnecessary. 

War in Disguise, or the Frauds of the Neutral Flags. 1 
vol. 8vo. boards, Si 37 1-2..,..This work is equally valuable 
as a model offne zuriting , and as a document of the preten¬ 
sions of Great-Britain respecting the restrictions of neutral 
commerce. 

Second Edition of War in Disguise, 12mo. 75 cents. 

Answer to War in Disguise, 62 1-2 cents. The pen of 

no ordinary writer is visible throughout. Arguments brief 
yet luminous—wit caustic , yetfreefrom invective—the pow¬ 
ers of reason and fancy are combined in this able vindication 
of the rights of neutrality. 

Walter Scott’s Lay of the Last Minstrel, a Poem, 12mo. 
boards, Si This production breathes the spirit of true po¬ 
etry. It is a beautiful picture of the manners of the ehivalric 
ages. 








ALSO IN THE PRESS, 

Butter’s Nisi Prius, 8vo. printed page for page from the 
London Copy. 

Second Volume of Judge Cranch’s Reports. 

Third Volume of New-York Term Reports. 

American Pleader’s Assistant, by Collinson Read Esq. 
of Philadelphia. 

Shakspeare’s Works, with Johnson’s and Steven’s Notes, 

17 vols. royal 12mo. price $1 50 per vol. boards. Five vo _ 

lumes are already published ; the others will appear monthly . 

Same, without Notes, price Si per vol. boards. 

Azuni’s Maritime Law of Europe, translated by William 
Johnson, Esq. Reporter to the State ofNew-York, and will 

be published in the Spring. This is a treatise upon a subject 

hitherto imperfectly digested and explained. The task was 
reserved for Azuni. For the excellent performance of it, we 
need only appeal to those who are acquainted zvith the origi- 
al. The English translation now offered to the public, is the 
first that has appeared . Many of thefrst characters in the 
United States, who well know the importance of the work, 
have subscribed to it without solicitation . The following is 
an extract of a letter to the Publishers, from one of the most 
eminent of the literati of this country . 

w I have read the printed sheets of the translation of Azuni 
which you sent to me, zvith instruction and delight . Ifind the 
text remarkably correct; and the editorial notes are extreme - 
ly judicious, and nicely critical 


LBFe ’ll 

































* 















































* 














. 































% 















































« 
















/ 


4 










«* 




* 

































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 

















































« 


















*» 















✓ 



V 




















I 


















































» 


« 








I 



























